Crispy and well seasoned skin, rendered of excess fat, is a true sign of well made chicken. She is tender and juicy
in all of the right places. She can be baked, fried, stewed, steamed, and grilled. Not to mention barbecued.
The taste is very fluent, and smooth. The meat is sweet and even better when it is cured. There is no food in the
world that is more addictive, tantalizing, mesmorizing, and as hypnotizing as chicken. It pleases all senses from
the sense of smell to the sense of taste. A bowl of mashed potatoes and gravy by its side, will do me just fine.
However it is made, it is all well with me.

I want to thank my opponent, Interrogator, for accepting this challenge. It is my hope that we have a fun exchange of ideas and that we both learn something from the exchanges.

With that said, let’s get to the meat (quite literally!) shall we?

The resolution for this debate is “Fish is better then Chicken”. First, I want to say that in my haste to create this debate, I faltered on grammar, the correct resolution should be “Fish is better than Chicken”. With that minor addendum out of the way, I will be arguing for the resolution and interrogator will be arguing against the resolution.

With the resolution as it is, there is obviously a bit of subjectivity involved with the notion of what constitutes ‘better’. I will be attempting to make my approach as objective as possible and in that effort I will be arguing that by fish is healthier than chicken and therefore better (Contention 1 or C1). Another avenue I will be approaching this from is that there are multiple species of fish and therefore provide more variety in which to satisfy more diverse palates then chicken (Contention 2, or C2).

“There is evidence from multiple studies supporting intake of recommended amounts of DHA and EPA in the form of dietary fish or fish oil supplements lowers triglycerides, reduces the risk of death, heart attack, dangerous abnormal heart rhythms, and strokes in people with known cardiovascular disease, slows the buildup of atherosclerotic plaques ("hardening of the arteries"), and lowers blood pressure slightly. However, high doses may have harmful effects, such as an increased risk of bleeding. Although similar benefits are proposed for alpha-linolenic acid, scientific evidence is less compelling, and beneficial effects may be less pronounced.” (1)

Additionally, Wikipedia lists a bevy of health benefits associated with eating fish (2), some of which include joint benefits, heart health, and improved brain function. This is in addition to providing quality nutrients that the body needs, such as selenium, iodine, vitamin A and D. (2)

According to this study (3), if you eat chicken 5 or more times a week, your risk for bladder cancer shoots up by 52 percent. Does my opponent think that bladder cancer is something that should be construed as a ‘better’ feature?

Support for C2:

It’s an objective fact that what we call ‘fish’ is comprised of many, many, species. According to Wikipedia, there are 32,000 different species (4). What is referred to as ‘chicken’ is actually a subspecies of the Gallus gallus (5).The flavor of these species varies widely, as salmon tastes radically different from flounder. The inevitable conclusion from the variety of flavors and the diversity is a virtual culinary buffet of taste.

As a final point, fish is, by far, more popular than chicken. Wikipedia states “In 2005, the worldwide per capita consumption of fish captured from wild fisheries was 14.4 kilograms, with an additional 7.4 kilograms harvested from fish farms.” (6) You add to that the fact that fishing and fish-related industries help employee (directly/indirectly) over 500 million people (6)(7) and you have a powerful argument that fish is better for the economic health of the world as compared to chicken. I would ask my opponent, how many people does the chicken market employ?

Concluding thoughts:

It seems evident to me that if my opponent is unable to counter both of my contentions, then it is completely unclear how he can objectively say that chicken is better than fish.

Note: It seems that my opponent has jumped the guy, so to speak, and put forth what could be construed as an argument in round 1, which is the acceptance round. The readers will have to judge what such a break from the agreed upon debate structure entails.

Chicken is a poultry styled, very soulful meat. It is consumed by the billions per year. Americans eat over
100 pounds annually. The health benefits are irrelevent, as it cannot be proven conclusively, that chicken is
as danerous as you have explained it to be. These are only selective points of information that can be said as
well about fish. Not to mention the minute, by deadly amounts of mercury that is lodged into them during
the time of processing. Fish are more likely to kill simply because of its toxic environment. Water is a liquid
and is a necessity that is consumed daily by almost all living organisms here on Earth.
That makes fish itself expendable by far. You can suffer from food poison, and other cancerous diseases.
Most of which do occur long term. Some studies even link fish to ADD, and autism. * I think that chicken is
safer because they are much more manageable and are kept in captivity. That is my take on these issues.

“Crispy and well seasoned skin, rendered of excess fat, is a true sign of well made chicken. She is tender and juicy in all of the right places. She can be baked, fried, stewed, steamed, and grilled. Not to mention barbecued. The taste is very fluent, and smooth. The meat is sweet and even better when it is cured. There is no food in the world that is more addictive, tantalizing, mesmorizing, and as hypnotizing as chicken. It pleases all senses from the sense of smell to the sense of taste. A bowl of mashed potatoes and gravy by its side, will do me just fine. However it is made, it is all well with me.”

While this certainly sounds delicious, it’s completely unclear how my opponent is attempting to suggest that fish is incapable of being prepared this way. In fact, to pull just one example, if readers will go to the link provided in my references, here is a 4 ½ star Crispy Fish recipe (1). Not only do you get the crispy yumminess that my opponent alludes to in the quote above, you get the healthy goodness of Omega 3 fatty acids! A two for one combo!

Interrogator’s Opening Statement:

My opponent has thrown out a bevy of claims without support. His first contention is:

“Chicken is a poultry styled, very soulful meat. It is consumed by the billions per year. Americans eat over 100 pounds annually.”

It is unclear what Interrogator means by ‘soulful’ meat. It would seem that this is a style of cooking, which can be equally applied to fish (2). My opponent claims that chicken is consumed by the billions per year, but provides no citations, nor does he provide the relevance to such data.

Contra my contention 1, interrogator states:

“The health benefits are irrelevent, as it cannot be proven conclusively, that chicken is as danerous as you have explained it to be”

If my opponents contention is that because a multitude of people eat chicken (billions annually), therefore chicken is better, then I think that the health ramifications of chicken are indeed very important. After all, if more and more people die from bladder cancer from eating more and more chicken, then eventually the number of chicken consumed annually will drop significantly.

Again, with respect to contention 1, my opponent states:

“These are only selective points of information that can be said as well about fish. Not to mention the minute, by deadly amounts of mercury that is lodged into them during the time of processing. Fish are more likely to kill simply because of its toxic environment. Water is a liquid and is a necessity that is consumed daily by almost all living organisms here on Earth. That makes fish itself expendable by far. You can suffer from food poison, and other cancerous diseases. Most of which do occur long term. Some studies even link fish to ADD, and autism. * I think that chicken is safer because they are much more manageable and are kept in captivity. That is my take on these issues.”

No citations are provided. Further, with such a plethora of different species of fish to choose from, the intelligent consumer can avoid fish that contain high levels of mercury. As we can see from the data on this page (3), there are plenty of low-level mercury fish out there. According to this cite, the benefits outweigh the miniscule risk to consumers (4).

Concluding thoughts:

While my opponent has brought up some interesting (although completely unsubstantiated) points, the reality is the impact upon intelligent consumers is minimal. The benefits simply outweigh the miniscule risk. I’ll draw the readers attention to the fact that my second contention, that the multitude of different species of fish provide more variety and therefore satisfy more diverse appetites than chicken has gone unchallenged.

References:

(1)http://allrecipes.com... (4 ½ stars rated, 5,241 people have ‘saved’ this recipe, indicating they liked it, and it has 118 reviews).

Meatros. I said that most people eat chicken because of the quality of taste. Second it could be said that the
flavor of chicken even seasoned, is much better than fish. Fish is more generic in taste, and spoils faster.
The smell is not always as pleasant, as is is sometimes known as the stinch of death. Anyway. Chicken has
soul, and that means it relaxes and is pleasing to ones soul. That is why it is considered to be the primary and superior
soul food of all time. Billions of pounds of chicken, all over the globe, is consumed yearly. 100 pounds alone here
in America per person. That is astounding ! The health benefits of chicken with no skin, and grilled is safer and
better to eat than fish. This is a fact due to chicken's high level of protein, which also comes from eggs. This nutrient is a necessity and valuable assett
to one's body. Fish has mercury and this has been proven to be a danger to one's health long term.
You are more likely to die, or become ill with this very potent toxin. It can cause cancer, liver damage, high blood
pressure, paralysis, arthritis, and more. If I had a choice to eat one daily for life, it would undoubtedly be chicken meat.
Not fish. Chicken is an international phenomenon. And even in China, an Asian country where fish is widely marketed, and eaten.
Chicken triumphs at the end of the day. *

This is my final post in this debate and I want to take a moment to thank Interrogator for defending his position. I hope that our readers have enjoyed our exchanges. I certainly have.

A review of my two contentions:

Second Contention:

I will deal with my second contention first, as Interrogator has not introduced any new material to answer in the third round. Interrogator has not addressed my second contention in any of the rounds and therefore it provides at least some evidence that fish is better than chicken in that the multitude of fish species provides more variety in taste for consumers. Further, as an additional point with Interrogator has not addressed, fish provides over 500 million jobs to people throughout the world. This provides additional economic evidence that fish is better than chicken.

First Contention:

In response to my rebuttals in the prior round, it appears that my opponent has chosen to simply repeat his unsubstantiated claims. Specifically he states:

“Fish has mercury and this has been proven to be a danger to one's health long term. You are more likely to die, or become ill with this very potent toxin. It can cause cancer, liver damage, high blood pressure, paralysis, arthritis, and more. If I had a choice to eat one daily for life, it would undoubtedly be chicken meat. Not fish. Chicken is an international phenomenon. And even in China, an Asian country where fish is widely marketed, and eaten.”

In response to this, I pointed out that the dangers are overblown and an intelligent consumer can easily avoid these perils. Further, I pointed out the uncontested fact that a person who subsists on chicken for his daily sustenance has a 52% greater chance of developing bladder cancer!

Clearly the wise consumer should prefer fish to increasing the odds of bladder cancer.

Contra Con’s Soul Food Contention:

Interrogator states:

“Meatros. I said that most people eat chicken because of the quality of taste. Second it could be said that the flavor of chicken even seasoned, is much better than fish. Fish is more generic in taste, and spoils faster. The smell is not always as pleasant, as is is sometimes known as the stinch of death. Anyway. Chicken has soul, and that means it relaxes and is pleasing to ones soul. That is why it is considered to be the primary and superior soul food of all time.”

In round three I provided evidence to support the fact that fish is considered soul food as well. So clearly the providence of ghostly delight does not belong solely to chicken.

I cannot see how it is reasonable to suppose that ‘fish is more generic in taste’, when there are 32,000 different species of fish! It is unclear how this could possibly be the case. As to spoiling faster, Con has a point here, however the object of this debate has been about the consumption of fish, not keeping it indefinitely, so unless my opponent is trying to make an aesthetic point about keeping chicken as a part of the interior design of one’s kitchen, I fail to see how this is a better-making property of chicken.

Alleged Health Benefits of Chicken

The Con states, again without support:

“Billions of pounds of chicken, all over the globe, is consumed yearly. 100 pounds alone here in America per person. That is astounding! The health benefits of chicken with no skin, and grilled is safer and better to eat than fish. This is a fact due to chicken's high level of protein, which also comes from eggs. This nutrient is a necessity and valuable asset to one's body.”

Certainly chicken does provide a high level of protein and a low amount of fat, when compared to bovine. When we compare the macro nutrients of chicken with fish, fish comes out superior. According to this site (1), the macro nutrient breakdown of chicken and fish, per serving is:

Chicken Fish

Calories: 160 Calories: 110-140

Protein: 28 Protein: 20-25 Carbs: 0 Carbs: 0 Fat: 7 Fat: 1-5

So, for the weight-conscious American, it would appear that fish comes out ahead in the calorie department, as it has between 20 and 50 fewer calories than chicken. Next we turn our attention to protein. Chicken seems to come out ahead here, but let’s keep in mind that the average person only needs between 30 and 60 grams of protein a day (2). It’s hard to see how chicken would come out significantly ahead here, when the required amount of protein is a paltry 5-10 grams away from the fish eater’s grasp.

The real crème de la crème of the data is in the fat content. Fish, as has been evidenced in round three, contains high levels of Omega 3 fatty acids, which provide a spectrum of benefits (3). The breakdown of chicken fat reveals that it contains a startling amount of saturated fat (4). Saturated fat is associated with cardiovascular disease and even cancer (5). Clearly in the fat contest, chicken is no winner and should not be had for dinner.

In conclusion, I believe I have satisfied the burden of proof and readers should vote Pro.

Meatros. Fish may be more of value, but long term chicken is a much more flexible meat. It is even easier to cook and handle
under the same circumstances. It has about the same health and fat content when there is no skin.
It has a vast market worlwide thanks to the industrialized fast food industry. You have to understand that China
has over 1 billion people. But the number 1 fast food restaurant is Kentucky Fried Chicken. This in turn will bring
more revenue to the States and the franchise overall. This alone generates over 600 million dollars just for that
one business alone. I havent even began to talk about the money that is being made daily in independent chains, as well as grocery
stores, farms, and other free market venues. Did you also know about the popularity of chicken in industrialized
countries such as New Zealand and Canada. 100 pounds per person in America is a lot of meat son !
Anyway. The longevity and endurance and texture of chicken also outdoes fish, as the storage time is not nearly as long. Fish processing less man power but more preservatives. * And again, the taste if better. The meat in chicken is sweeter, and has more flavor. There maybe a ton of different species of fish in the world, but most of it still tastes
the same. And chicken can be eaten with more side orders such as cornbread, fries, mashed potatoes, sweet potato
pie, hush puppies, brown rice, and more. Fish is more of an appetizer or light dinner if anything.
I never hear people go crazy over fish the way they do fried chicken, which is the GRAND DAMN of all meats created.
It has zest, and it has pizazz ! This human like characteristic by itself gives chicken a life of its own. Fish is boring. It is not juicy, and as spicy as chicken either. The taste in poultry is more stimulating by nature, and these creatures
are filled with hormones and herbs to give it an even bigger advantage in that category. So the processing, the packaging, the
seasoning, the marketing, all work in chicken's favor. I rest my case.

Meatros. Yes, I agree. This was fun. I learned a lot about fish today as well.
But lets be real here. Chicken is the sh*t. Fish is a good contender.
But it does not have enough legs to stand on.
It is not as captivating.
It doesnt have as much conviction.
You need to understand the pain and turmoil these animals go though ever year.
Just so they can end up on some fat guy's dinner plate. It is unbelievable.
Long live KFC.

Reasons for voting decision: Con makes very few arguments of substance and leaves much of Pros case unrefuted and even ignored. Con also makes new arguments in the final round which should be ignored because he did not give Pro a chance to refute. Pro wins argument easily. Con loses conduct for ignoring much of Pros case, especially R1 acceptance. Con loses sources for not having any despite making statements of fact that needed to be supported.